Exploring the legacy of the rationalist medieval Torah scholars, and various other notes

Monday, July 4, 2011

Interpretations of Maimonides: A Guide for the Perplexed

Are you perplexed by all the different approaches to Rambam's theology? The solution is here! This handy-dandy chart explains the differences between the various schools of thought. (If you are reading this via e-mail, please note that you might have to visit the website for the chart to display properly.)

School of Thought

Sample Representatives

Was Rambam similar to Aristotle?

Did Rambam accurately reflect traditional Judaism?

Was Rambam's theological approach correct?

Traditional Non-Orthodox

Rashba; Vilna Gaon; Hirsch

Mostly

Mostly not

No

Orthodox Hyper-rationalist

Jose Faur; YBT

Mostly

Entirely

Yes

Traditionalist Ultra-Orthodox

Charedim

Partially

Mostly not

No, but he didn't say it, didn't mean it, he could say it but we can't, etc.

Traditionalist Orthodox

Benzion Buchman

Barely

Entirely

Yes

Esoteric Academic

Strauss

Entirely

Not at all

It's a secret

Mainstream Academic

Kellner, Shapiro

Mostly

Mostly not

Partially

Bear in mind that, as with all summaries, this chart is necessarily a simplification, and thus rough around the edges. But note the similarities between the first group and the last!

Marc Shapiro's brilliant when it comes to just about anything in Jewish history, but when it comes to mainstream academics elucidating their opinions on Rambam, he's not the man I think of. Three random examples of prominent frum scholars who have engaged in a lot of Rambam-interpreting: Haim Kreisel, Lawrence Kaplan, and the late Marvin Fox.

Who are these "traditional Orthodox," I wonder? Are Rabbi Buchman's ideas shared by a certain frum group?

1 - It seems you forgot a whole group. I'm speaking of Rav Abraham Abulafia's support of Rambam's aristotelian philosophy but saying that it is a vest for something mystical and deeper. (kabbalistic teachings in his view)

2 - An interesting question to be asked would be: Why the groups differ themselves regarding Rambam's relation to Aristotle. To compare both, you must be well versed in both authors, which often is not the case. Anyway, people do this all the time: The want to make a statement and will make it by reading or putting the authors in a certain way to force a conclusion that is their initially held opinion. And, in each case you must ask why as the answer will often reveal the "sacred premises" that is held. This will happen both in the religious and the academic world, each having their own means of making sure the mainstream conclusion will hold. (even in peer reviewed)

Which remind of another thing: Don't you think the Charedi world needs a "Sokal affair"?

Don't you think an interpreting Maimonides chart should have a column about how the Guide relates to the Mishneh Torah? Of course, this would ruin your parallel between the first and last columns, because the Rashba and Vilna Gaon had no reason to reject the Rambam of the Mishneh Torah, unlike your "mainstream academics."

We know about many of the Rabbinic and historic authorities noted in the chart, why is Yeshiva Bnei Torah added to the mix? They are a very small fringe yeshiva and fairly irrelevant to the masses (BTW, this is not a criticism of the Yeshiva, just an observation).

In the Mainstream Academic category, I found it interesting that you stated that Menachem Kellner feels that mostly, the Rambam does not reflect traditional Judaism accurately. Although Professor Kellner is fairly critical of the Rambam's yud-gimmel ikkarim, it seems to me as though he agrees with most other areas of the Rambam's thought and approach. Would you say that this is accurate?Also, I am a big fan of Hakham Jose Faur and his works. But how good of a job do you feel he does in arguing that the Rambam is the most accurate expression of traditional Judaism?

I would mention the work of Dr. Isadore Twersky who showed that the Rambam expressed philosophy also in works other than the Guide. Thus he showed ignorance on the part of those who thought they could know his philosophy only from the Guide.

What would be the answers for a sixth columm: "Was the Rambam correct about the first mitsva in the Mishne Tora, specified, in Mechon Mamre's text, in the first 4 halachot of Hilchot Yesode Hatora Ch. 1(http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1101.htm)?

(This is a much narrower and more delimited question than: "What is your school's position on "Rambam's theology".)

A related question would be: "Is study of Aristotle necessary to comprehend that mitsva?"

I was surprised to see this article on the Chabad website, praising Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed and claiming that it has secret meanings that kabbalistic commentaries have revealed. It doesn't say anything that suggest Rambam was incorrect theologically. Maybe this deserves another row?

I don't find that in the 2 summaries at amazon, or any of the lengthy reviews I perused. If it were truly claimed, no one could possibly take it seriously, but really I don't know where you're getting this from. It does not seem that the author claimed it at all. You have read this book?

Although Professor Kellner is fairly critical of the Rambam's yud-gimmel ikkarim, it seems to me as though he agrees with most other areas of the Rambam's thought and approach. Would you say that this is accurate?

"Agrees with" is not the same as "reflects traditional Judaism." By the way, Prof. Kellner liked my chart and did not raise any objections!

Also, I am a big fan of Hakham Jose Faur and his works. But how good of a job do you feel he does in arguing that the Rambam is the most accurate expression of traditional Judaism?

I was surprised to see this article on the Chabad website, praising Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed and claiming that it has secret meanings that kabbalistic commentaries have revealed. It doesn't say anything that suggest Rambam was incorrect theologically.

Sure, if you completely change the meaning of everything Rambam says in order to fit it in with your views, then Rambam was never incorrect theologically!

I agree with Elkay38. YBT is a small fringe yeshiva. Rabbi chait makes no attempt to spread his ideas to the masses and, in fact, seems intent on limiting his influence to a handful of people in Far Rockaway. Why is his yeshiva on this chart?

I add that this is NOT meant in a negative way. My few interactions with Rav Chait have always been very positive. He is a nice person and a Talmid Chacham.

I think it’s irresponsible of you to put up a chart like this without backup for your conclusions.

Was Rambam's theological approach correct? Are you referring to his theological approach in general or to particular aspects of it? Vilna Gaon disagreed with him on avodah zorah and magic, does that mean he disagreed with his “theological approach?”By Kellner, I assume you mean he disagrees with beliefs being more important than actions; but again that’s one aspect of his theological approach. From books of his that I’ve read, I think he agrees with much of Rambam’s theology, so the term “partially” on your part is questionable.

Moreover, the entire column “Was Rambam's theological approach correct,” is asking a question that cannot be answered (and was never addressed) by most of the people in the chart. With the exception of Rashba and Vilna Gaon, none of the people even remotely have the expertise to determine whether Rambam is correct. If you mean was Rambam traditional?; then you’re asking the same question twice.

I think you make a joke out of the entire concept by literally pigeon holing talmidei chachamim into your chart. Kinda disturbing ... and Jose Faur and YBT in one breath, Oy li Shechatasi, Oy li sheavisi.

I am not sure that anyone cares, but I would have answered 'yes' to all three columns. Here is why for the last two. Rambam does represent a minority approach found in our tradition, thus he does accurately reflect our tradition and in that sense it's a correct theological approach. Personally, it's the only one that makes sense to me so I would say it's THE correct approach. Does anyone agree with me?

R. Chait's students certainly spread his gospel, and have set up schools all over america, including in Cedarhearst, Seattle, R. Zucker brings his teachings to New jersey, and I believe there is one in Miami as well.

There is a category I feel should be included, or one or two categores rearranged.

For I feel that many in the Traditionalist Orthodox are of the same mindset as in the Traditionalist Ultra-Orthodox.

And to add the category of Liberal-Orthodox or even rationalist-Orthodox would suffice to represent the remainder.

For those in this latter category ask.

What would be of all the great Torah Scholars, and all the other great accomplished people that were and are today, if they were told, "he could say it but we can't" or the like. And how do we revive those who have already been discouraged?o

Thanks, Eric -- that book looks fascinating. The funny thing is that in one dimension, Chabad is actually more Maimonidean than any other group. That is, they prioritize studying Mishnei Torah over Talmud, just as Rambam advocated. In fact, their daily study regimen (chumash w/ rashi, tanya, tehillim ("chitas"), and mishnei torah) includes pretty much everything besides Talmud. Of course, many study Talmud too, but it's not presented as a daily requirement like Chitas and Mishnei Torah.

Carol, I don't think it's meshugas. The reason they study Mishneh Torah daily, and not, say, the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, is because the Rebbe advocated that all Jews, man, woman and child should learn Rambam's codes daily, as a do-able way of fulfilling the mitzvah of studying the whole Torah (the MT is the only code to include all halacha), and as a way of uniting Jews. The approach is explained briefly here:

Accordingly, Chabad.org, in its daily study section, makes available an English translation the daily Rambam for each of the three tracks:

http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/default_cdo/jewish/Daily-Study.htm

It would make sense, of course, if Chabadniks studied a version of MT that included footnotes on where the Alter Rebbe or subsequent Chabad halacha or minhag differs from the Rambam. Maybe they do have such an edition -- I don't know. There are some footnotes to their online English editions, which might include material of this nature.

Also, I am a big fan of Hakham Jose Faur and his works. But how good of a job do you feel he does in arguing that the Rambam is the most accurate expression of traditional Judaism?

It's an impossible task, because he wasn't.

Perhaps saying that it is an impossible task to prove the Rambam represented traditional Judaism, because he didn't, is a bit over stated? Certainly in the major early medieval Jewish centers like Baghdad, Tunisia, and Spain, philosophical rationalism was a major trend within Judaism. What makes that less traditional?

Yishai, davening up Mishne Torah (or Chitas) is not the same as properly studying it - much less, becoming Maimonidean in hashkafa.

Let me cite an incident. I had come across an astounding statement in Mishne Torah (MT), hilchot beit habechira. "Ein bonim mizbei'ach ela binyan avonim gazit" (One can't construct an altar other than one of hewn stones). Such a statement is explicitly contradicted by a verse in the torah, "Im mizbach avenim ta'asu li, lo tivneh ethem gazit.." (If you make an altar for Me, don't build it of hewn stone). Moreover the grammar of the above sentence in MT is skewed (it should something like 'avnei gazit'). The commentaries on that page of MT are silent on the matter. Hence, I concluded that this was a copyists error that had become standardized when the MT was printed. I subsequently found that some manuscripts didn't have the problematic word 'gazit'.

This is by way of introduction. I had asked the rav in the local Lubavitch shul to explain the above sentence in MT; I asked a generally knowledgeable rebbe in their yeshiva; I even asked a Chabadnik who had translated MT. None gave a reply other than a shrug. Now, these people had gone through the MT many times, yet had not stopped and tried to understand such an obvious contradiction to a torah verse (and to a later, more detailed description of building an altar in hilchot beit habechira).

Rambam was a very precise and careful writer. His positions are well known to those who would bother reading them. To say that Harambam was careful and diligent in teaching and practicing Talmudic Halacah is an understatement. Traditional is not enough. Harambam was through and through a strict observant Talmudist. Any review of the Mishneh Tora and his Responsa makes this abundantly clear. Nothing in the Moreh in any way detracts from this.

The rest of the chart is fluff & stuff.

And one more thing: Hacham Professor Faur does not view Harambam as being mostly Aristotelian. Simply an inaccurate and extremely simplistic statement. I say this not only because I read the Hacham's writings but because I personally studied with him for over 3 decades.

Joining your discussion late,Harambam was the senior Baal Kabbalah of the long Galut . For the last Eight centuries, since the "Moreh" was published , only two Rabbis were able to solve the secret partially . The lesser one is Rabbi Avraham Abulafia Zl, Haroe ve Hachacham. Yamim Yagidu..

Follow Rationalist Judaism

Subscribe via email

Subscribe via RSS feed

Reviews

"Slifkin’s new blog would soon become enormously popular within the rabbinic blogosphere... By many accounts, he has almost single-handedly brought an entire new worldview to the fore." - Tablet Magazine

Donate to Rationalist Judaism

Make a donation to show your support!

About This Site

This website is an exploration into the rationalist approach to Judaism that was most famously presented by Maimonides. It will also explore contemporary rationalist approaches, as well as being a forum for various other notes. Well-written comments in the spirit of this enterprise will be posted; please include a name (even a pseudonym).